A little-known Indiana law authorizing police to seize firearms possessed by a person deemed a danger to themselves or others could become a national model as leaders seek ways to prevent the next school massacre.

President Donald Trump reportedly is considering a plan to offer federal grants or other incentives to encourage states to adopt measures similar to the "red flag" law currently in effect in Indiana.

The Hoosier State is one of just five in the nation to have such a law. California, Oregon, Washington and Connecticut also have a "red flag" law on their books.

The 2005 Indiana statute was enacted by the Republican-controlled General Assembly and Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels after a man who previously had displayed signs of dangerous behavior used a semi-automatic rifle and two handguns to shoot five Indianapolis police officers, killing one. The law is named after Timothy "Jake" Laird, the officer fatally shot.

Under the law, a police officer who believes a dangerous individual no longer should have a firearm can present a sworn affidavit to a judge detailing why the officer believes the person is dangerous and identifying the specific location of the firearm.

Police also can take firearms — without a warrant — from a person suspected to be dangerous if an officer later obtains judicial consent.

‘Confiscate the handguns’

According to court records, the law was used at least 46 times last year in Indiana to take firearms from dangerous individuals. The exact number is unknown since not all Indiana counties use the statewide court-case management system.

Indiana’s “red flag” law allowed Lake County Sheriff’s police to seize weapons from a Crown Point area man’s home this past January, said Cmdr. Michael Stewart, head of investigations.

The man’s wife called 911 after her husband, who takes psychiatric medications for mental illness, locked himself in a bathroom and was having delusions that people were hiding in the home's attic, Stewart said.

Police were able to safely calm the man that day. Radio dispatch had relayed to police the man had firearms in the home — a key fact Stewart recalled when they were sent to the home the next morning a second time for a similar disturbance.

“I just happened to be on the radio (that morning) and I told them, ‘Make sure you confiscate the handguns,' ” Stewart said.

“Criminal charges were not appropriate here,” Stewart said. “But we were able to confiscate the guns because the statute gives the immediate power without the delay of having to get a search warrant or secure criminal charges.”

To qualify as dangerous, a person must present an imminent risk of personal injury to themselves or another individual, the law says.

A person who poses a future risk also can be classified as dangerous if the person has a diagnosed mental illness and a pattern of not taking his or her medication, or there is other documented evidence the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.

That was the case in Lake County, Stewart said, noting police learned from his wife the man was not taking his medications. After the seizure of weapons, police presented a judge with an affidavit outlining why they felt it was necessary to confiscate the weapons.

Stewart said the man’s case is ongoing and his firearms have not been returned to him.

The law is about balancing public safety with a person’s right to due process, he added.

If the judge concludes there's probable cause to believe the person is dangerous and in possession of a firearm, the judge can issue a warrant for police to seize the weapon.

Within two weeks of the initial seizure, the judge must hold a hearing to allow the person whose firearms were taken a chance to get them back.

If prosecutors cannot show by clear and convincing evidence the person remains too dangerous to have a gun, then police must return it. Otherwise, the firearms will be retained by police for up to five years and then disposed of.

Until then, the person who lost his or her gun can request a hearing every six months on whether the person continues to be too dangerous to possess a firearm.

Even before the Parkland, Florida, shooting, Stewart said the Lake County Sheriff's Department created an affidavit template to further aid officers in filling out the proper paperwork.

Capt. Derek Allen, spokesman for the LaPorte County Sheriff's Department, said police seized four firearms last year in four separate cases of attempted suicides, potentially saving lives.

"Any law that is going to protect a dangerous individual, or another individual with whom they may have contact, is a benefit," Allen said.

'An important tool'

Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, who worked on the 2005 legislation, said the law is an important tool for Hoosier safety and worth other states emulating, because "it gives us the ability to deal with a troubled person and their weapon."

He insisted that it shouldn't be viewed as the government coming for people's guns because of the significant due process rights built into the statute.

Griffith Police Chief Greg Mance said his officers have had occasions where "high risk gun owners" have been identified and their weapons confiscated under the "red flag" law.

Once complaints were verified and a person has been deemed dangerous by officers and investigators, action is immediately taken, Mance added.

In these instances, action has resulted in the removal of firearms, following the formal procedures outlined by Indiana law.

In Griffith's most recent case, in January 2016, a gun owner suffering dementia-like symptoms was displaying erratic and dangerous behavior, Mance said.

"With the assistance of family and a psychological evaluation, we removed the weapons and, with the owner’s permission, the weapons were transferred to a family member and ultimately sold," he said.

In another incident, in February 2014, Griffith police removed several weapons from a home after the owner was charged with violation of a protection order.

"Through a plea agreement reached between the courts and the gun owner, the weapons were ordered to be permanently removed from the subject’s possession and were ultimately sold by the owner’s son," he said.

Mance said over the years, police been able to resolve such situations without the "red flag" law through psychological referrals, family intervention, court orders, and voluntary surrender of weapons.

'Intend to fully implement'

Hammond Police Chief John Doughty said his department, in most cases, waits for a determination from a judge before releasing firearms back to people.

But if no arrest was made in a case, and firearms were seized, a person could petition the Hammond Police Department for their weapons. In those cases, an investigation is completed to determine if the person is legally allowed to possess a firearm by state law. If all criteria is met, the firearms would be released to that individual.

The department views the 2005 law as an opportunity to permanently retain seized weapons and not return them to people who cannot lawfully possess a weapon or who pose a continual threat to the community, Doughty said.

“We intend to fully implement this law into departmental policy,” Doughty said.

A spokeswoman for the Porter County Sheriff’s Department said deputies there have used the “red flag” law in the past, deferring further comment to the prosecutor’s office for additional information.

Several other police departments in the Region did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Republican Attorney General Curtis Hill, who encouraged Trump to consider applying Indiana's law to the entire country, likewise said it "is a common-sense measure that in no way inhibits the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens."

State Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, co-sponsored the "red flag" statute, which passed the Legislature as House Enrolled Act 1776.

He said, "It's such a pleasant surprise that for once we in Indiana are out front on something, rather than bringing up the rear end, be it any kind of legislation or policies."

At the same time, Brown believes Indiana would be better off if it imposed more stringent requirements on all firearms purchases and allowed urban areas to enact more gun restrictions than rural parts of the state.

Subscribe to Daily Headlines

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Indiana's 'Red Flag' Law

Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:

(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or

(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:

(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or

(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.

(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.

As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

IC 35-47-14-2Warrant to search for firearm in possession of dangerous individual

Sec. 2. A circuit or superior court may issue a warrant to search for and seize a firearm in the possession of an individual who is dangerous if:

(1) a law enforcement officer provides the court a sworn affidavit that:

(A) states why the law enforcement officer believes that the individual is dangerous and in possession of a firearm; and

(B) describes the law enforcement officer's interactions and conversations with:

(i) the individual who is alleged to be dangerous; or

(ii) another individual, if the law enforcement officer believes that information obtained from this individual is credible and reliable;

that have led the law enforcement officer to believe that the individual is dangerous and in possession of a firearm;

(2) the affidavit specifically describes the location of the firearm; and

(3) the circuit or superior court determines that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is:

(A) dangerous; and

(B) in possession of a firearm.

As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

IC 35-47-14-3Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous

Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.

(b) The court shall review the written statement submitted under subsection (a). If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.

(c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.

As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

IC 35-47-14-4Filing of return after warrant is served

Sec. 4. If a court issued a warrant to seize a firearm under this chapter, the law enforcement officer who served the warrant shall, not later than forty-eight (48) hours after the warrant was served, file a return with the court that:

(1) states that the warrant was served; and

(2) sets forth:

(A) the time and date on which the warrant was served;

(B) the name and address of the individual named in the warrant; and

(C) the quantity and identity of any firearms seized by the law enforcement officer.

As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

IC 35-47-14-5Requirement of hearing on whether firearm should be returned or retained

Sec. 5. (a) Not later than fourteen (14) days after a return is filed under section 4 of this chapter or a written statement is submitted under section 3 of this chapter, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the seized firearm should be:

(1) returned to the individual from whom the firearm was seized; or

(2) retained by the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm.

(b) The court shall set the hearing date as soon as possible after the return is filed under section 4 of this chapter. The court shall inform:

(1) the prosecuting attorney; and

(2) the individual from whom the firearm was seized;

of the date, time, and location of the hearing. The court may conduct the hearing at a facility or other suitable place not likely to have a harmful effect upon the individual's health or well-being.

As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

IC 35-47-14-6Burden of proof at hearing; court orders

Sec. 6. (a) In a hearing conducted under section 5 of this chapter, the state has the burden of proving all material facts by clear and convincing evidence.

(b) If the court, in a hearing under section 5 of this chapter, determines that the state has proved by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is dangerous, the court may order that the law enforcement agency having custody of the seized firearm retain the firearm. In addition, if the individual has received a license to carry a handgun, the court shall suspend the individual's license to carry a handgun. If the court determines that the state has failed to prove that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual from whom it was seized.

(c) If the court, in a hearing under section 5 of this chapter, orders a law enforcement agency to retain a firearm, the law enforcement agency shall retain the firearm until the court orders the firearm returned or otherwise disposed of.

As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

IC 35-47-14-7If firearm seized is owned by another individual

Sec. 7. If the court, in a hearing conducted under section 5 of this chapter, determines that:

(1) the individual from whom a firearm was seized is dangerous; and

(2) the firearm seized from the individual is owned by another individual;

the court may order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the owner of the firearm.

As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

IC 35-47-14-8Petition for return of a firearm

Sec. 8. (a) At least one hundred eighty (180) days after the date on which a court orders a law enforcement agency to retain an individual's firearm under section 6(b) of this chapter, the individual may petition the court for return of the firearm.

(b) Upon receipt of a petition described in subsection (a), the court shall:

(1) enter an order setting a date for a hearing on the petition; and

(2) inform the prosecuting attorney of the date, time, and location of the hearing.

(c) The prosecuting attorney shall represent the state at the hearing on a petition under this section.

(d) In a hearing on a petition under this section, the individual:

(1) may be represented by an attorney; and

(2) must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the individual is not dangerous.

(e) If, upon the completion of the hearing and consideration of the record, the court finds that the individual is not dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.

(f) If the court denies an individual's petition under this section, the individual may not file a subsequent petition until at least one hundred eighty (180) days after the date on which the court denied the petition.

As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

IC 35-47-14-9When law enforcement agency may be ordered to dispose of firearm

Sec. 9. If at least five (5) years have passed since a court conducted the first hearing to retain a firearm under this chapter, the court, after giving notice to the parties and conducting a hearing, may order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to dispose of the firearm in accordance with IC 35-47-3.

As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537. Amended by P.L.157-2014, SEC.6.

IC 35-47-14-10Request to sell retained firearm

Sec. 10. (a) If a court has ordered a law enforcement agency to retain an individual's firearm under section 6 of this chapter, the individual may request the court to order the law enforcement agency to sell the firearm at auction under IC 35-47-3-2 and return the proceeds to the individual.

(b) An individual may make the request described in subsection (a):

(1) at the retention hearing described in section 9 of this chapter; or

(2) at any time before the retention hearing described in section 9 of this chapter is held.

(c) If an individual timely requests a sale of a firearm under subsection (a), the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to sell the firearm at auction under IC 35-47-3-2, unless the serial number of the firearm has been obliterated.

(d) If the court issues an order under subsection (c), the court's order must require:

(1) that the firearm be sold not more than one (1) year after receipt of the order; and

(2) that the proceeds of the sale be returned to the individual who owns the firearm. However, the law enforcement agency may retain not more than eight percent (8%) of the sale price to pay the costs of the sale, including administrative costs and the auctioneer's fee.

Tags

Dan is Statehouse Bureau Chief for The Times. Since 2009, he's reported on Indiana government and politics — and how both impact the Region — from the state capital in Indianapolis. He originally is from Orland Park, Ill.

Get email notifications on Daniel Carden daily!

Your notification has been saved.

There was a problem saving your notification.

Whenever Daniel Carden posts new content, you'll get an email delivered to your inbox with a link.

Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.

Followed notifications

Please log in to use this feature

Lauren covers North Lake County government, breaking news, crime and environmental issues for The Times. She previously worked at The Herald-News in Joliet. She holds a master’s degree in Public Affairs Reporting.

Get email notifications on Lauren Leone-Cross daily!

Your notification has been saved.

There was a problem saving your notification.

Whenever Lauren Leone-Cross posts new content, you'll get an email delivered to your inbox with a link.

Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.